Mara, who links to RAWA on her name, has left two comments. One as Mara and one as anonymous. She needed a sock puppet I guess. I was going to blog about this on Monday but I'm really pissed. Marcia doesn't give a damn but it pisses me off.
If you don't know, Marcia's my cousin. I'm really not in the mood, on Christmas Day, for some faux Communist trashing my cousin with lies.
Click here for her post.
And here are the two comments Mara left.
You can read my comments and Keesha just posted one! Yea, Keesha! I sent out an e-mail asking if anyone else had seen Mara's crap. Go Keesha!
Okay back to Lying Mara and her lying RAWA. I never had a problem with RAWA until Mara but now I do. Got a big problem with liars who go after my cousin.
At this late date, it's a surprise that the sexism of either man would be in doubt. For example, Larisa Alezandrovna posted "Raimondo attacks..." in July of 2007:
His piece does little to address the key points I make, and he does use trite and often sexist cutsie language to address me: "the lovely Larisa," or "My dear Larisa," and so forth. We are not doing a class on Nabokovian stylings here, so the lilting language is really unnecessary. But I digress as I often do. In response to Raimondo's response (to my response and so forth), his fan club stopped by to spam my comments. Lucky for me I have set up an approval system for comments, so I managed to delete most of the garbage and left some of the more rational posts. So, to make a long blog entry even longer, here is my latest response to Justin's hallucinations:
Glenn Greenwald? Here's Violet Socks:
Got that? Prostitution of women is “routine acts of consensual adult” sex. Child pornography and solicitation are “sexual improprieties.” The implication being that the rape allegations against Julian Assange are just some bitches lying.
To put this in context, understand that Greenwald believes that torture pornography is also a routine act of consensual adult sex, and that torture pornography victims are lying when they say they were raped. Greenwald is profoundly opposed to the torture of men, you understand, and his indignation at the treatment of male prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo is entirely justified. But when it comes to women, he sings a different tune. The particular case I’m thinking of is instructive: it involved a woman who was tortured by a pornographer on camera and, visibly in shock and trembling, agreed with her attacker that she had acquiesced to the torture. Once she was free she filed rape charges and explained that she had had no idea what was going to happen to her during the filming and was severely traumatized. Greenwald took the side of the torturer. He argued that when the woman was interviewed by her torturer on camera—with eyes red from crying—and meekly agreed that everything was fine, she was telling the truth. But when she got away from the guy and filed charges for rape and abuse, she was lying.
It’s amazing, isn’t it? In Greenwald’s world, the torture of men produces bogus confessions, but the torture of women produces statements of absolute truth. And in Greenwald’s world, when men get away from their torturers and are free to speak, they then tell the truth about what happened. When women get away from their torturers and are free to speak, they lie.
And here's Violet Socks from 2009:
When I posted a link to Glenn Greenwald’s column the other day, I was unaware of his history as an advocate for torturers. Greenwald has vigorously championed torturers’ rights, has explicitly privileged their version of events over that of their victims, and has asserted — in agreement with the torturers — that “no real pain was inflicted” on the victims.
Of course these aren’t the torturers at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. It’s the film company of “Max Hardcore,” an extreme pornographer who grossly abused women while filming the proceedings for the entertainment of other men. Hardcore claims his victims were thrilled to be tortured, and Greenwald accepts this point of view unquestioningly.
Amazing what a difference gender makes, huh?
And if you’re thinking that it’s not a question of gender, that the real difference is between prisoners of war and allegedly volunteer performers, think again. I’ll help you:
Imagine that instead of Max Hardcore, we have a U.S. Army dude stationed in Iraq with a sideline in homemade porn. Imagine that this homemade porn is of a very special kind, involving Iraqi boys and young men off the streets, the ones who are scavenging in garbage dumps and living hand-to-mouth. Our imaginary Army pornographer offers these guys $20 each to be in a porn video. Many of them say yes — after all, $20 is a fortune for a street kid.
Each porn video consists of heavy-duty homosexual sadism and racism. The young Iraqi victim in each film is violently penetrated, choked, beaten, urinated on, masturbated on, fed his own feces, and forced to crawl on the floor while saying things like, “I’m a filthy sand n[**]ger” and “Mohammed is a pig-fu[**]er.” The Army pornographer screams racist epithets at the young victim throughout — that is, when he’s not too busy raping and kicking and pissing and force-feeding shit down the Iraqi’s throat. By the end of each video, the Iraqi victim is shrieking in pain and sobbing uncontrollably. When the camera finally shuts off, he collects his $20 and gets the hell out — shocked, shattered, humiliated to his core.
So think about that. Think about this imaginary series of homemade porn from Iraq, and imagine that it’s widely popular — on Army bases, stateside, anywhere white men enjoy fantasizing about torturing exploited Iraqis. How do you think people like Glenn Greenwald would react? Do you think Glenn would be talking loftily about the Army pornographer’s First Amendment rights? Do you think he would say that the videos are simply entertainment? That no harm is being done, to anyone? Would he insist that the central fact of the matter is that the Iraqis are exercising perfect free will? And that by honoring their desire to be humiliated and tortured for $20, he’s respecting them as people?Here's Jamelle Bouie (Truth/Slant):
And of course, Glenn Greenwald has been calling out Kagan’s “careerism” since it became clear that she was a leading contender for the nomination.
Now, to some degree, this is all true. Kagan has an extremely thin paper trail, and her five published articles are all technical and non-ideological. She’s been careful not to take a strong stance on politically sensitive issues, and even her close friends aren’t sure about her views on constitutional law. Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBlog describes her as “extraordinarily — almost artistically — careful. I don’t know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade.”
My question for Kagan’s critics is this: where were you when John Roberts was nominated to the court?
[. . .]
By contrast, Kagan has been pilloried for following a virtually identical path. Like the “lesbian” charge, I think the careerist charge — or at least, the constant harping on Kagan’s “careerism” — has everything to do with the fact that she is an ambitious, powerful woman. Hillary Clinton has long been subject to similar criticisms, as have other powerful, political women. I don’t mean for this to be a blanket accusation, but the constant criticism of Kagan’s “careerism” seems more than a little sexist.
I could go on and on. And I could do much more on both -- I used one example for Justin because I happen to like his other stands. Glenn has no stands as he demonstrated with cheerleading for Barack throughout 2008.
But here's reality, when you attack two women who may have been raped for coming forward, you're a sexist regardless of your gender. And that's reality.
I don't have time for Mara and her stupid RAWA which apparently agrees that women LIE about rape. Didn't realize that was their position at RAWA. Thanks, Mara, for clearing it up.